Alabama did not gain or lose any seats from the reapportionment after the 2010 census. The state population increased by more than 300,000 residents, about 7.5 percent.[1]

Process

Figure 1: This map shows the Alabama Congressional Districts after the 2000 census.

The Alabama Legislative Committee on Reapportionment is responsible for drafting plans for redistricting in the state House and Senate, along with U.S. Congressional seats in Alabama and the State Board of Education. The Legislative Reapportionment Office serves as a link between the United States Census Bureau and the Alabama Legislature. During years when the legislature is not involved with redistricting, the Commission is normally made up of 6 members as follows:[2]

When the Legislature is involved in the redistricting process, the Committee is composed of 22 members as follows:

One member of the House of Representatives from each U.S. congressional district

Four at-large members of the House of Representatives appointed by the Speaker of the House

One member of the Alabama Senate from each U.S. congressional district

Four at-large members of the Senate appointed by the Lieutenant Governor

Internet-based

In 2011, Alabama brought its entire redistricting process online. Using GIS software, Alabama became one of the first states to go completely to the web platform for re-drawing its districts.[3]

Citizens panel proposed

Craig Ford (D) introduced an idea to transfer redistricting authority to a nine-member citizens panel with members appointed by majority and minority parties in the legislature. However, the Republican-majority rejected the proposal.[4]

Leadership

Legislative committee

Membership of the permanent joint legislative committee on reapportionment were announced in the first 5 days of the legislative session that began March 1, 2011. Speaker of the HouseMike Hubbard (R) appointed 11 members from the House and Lieutenant GovernorKay Ivey (R) appointed 11 from the Senate.[5] The committee began its work on March 30.[6]

Meetings

The committee held a public meeting on March 31 to explicitly discuss the redrawing of congressional District 2. Prior to the meeting, Sen. Bryan Taylor said, "Our goal is to draw fair and reasonable districts. People usually like to have a ‘say so’ and we want them to have that. Not only do we want them to have that, but it’s required by law, so we’re going to come down and give people a chance to come to the mic and speak their mind.”[9]

Sen. Clay Scofield said he worked hard to get on the committee and promised, “The map is going to look a lot differently. We are going to be very, very fair to everyone. In the past that hasn’t been the case. There’s been a lot of ‘gerrymandering.’ Just take a look at the map and it’s pretty easy to see.”[10]

In the November 2, 2010 general election, Republicans took control of the state Senate and House, while holding on to the Governorship. This trifecta effectively gave Republicans a great amount of control over the redistricting process. Early on, one newspaper columnist predicted the redistricting effort would be "messy" and obtain slow approval from the Department of Justice.[12] With their new control of the legislature, Republicans had the opportunity to increase control over legislative and Congressional districts. Shannon Bridgmon, assistant professor of political science at the University of Alabama-Huntsville, pointed to a likely controversial redistricting process. "Democrats have been in charge of state Legislature over the last 12 decades, but with Republicans now in control, it will be interesting to see how partisan advantages are reflected," she said.[1]

Republicans already controlled all but one of the U.S. House of Representatives seats in Alabama. However, with the 2nd and 5th Districts recently switching from Democratic to Republican control, speculation was these could be the boundaries that would see the most polarized changes to favor the GOP.[13] The 7th District was likely to remain as a minority-protected seat, based on the Voting Rights Act.[14]

Census results

On February 23, 2011, the Census Bureau shipped Alabama's local census data to the governor and legislative leaders. This data was used to guide redistricting for state and local offices. It was publicly available for downloading.[15]

City/County population changes

These tables show the change in population in the five largest cities and counties in Alabama from 2000-2010.[16]

City

2000 Population

2010 Population

Percent Change

Birmingham

242,820

212,237

-12.6%

Montgomery

201,568

205,764

2.1%

Mobile

198,915

195,111

-1.9%

Huntsville

158,216

180,105

13.8%

Tuscaloosa

77,906

90,468

16.1%

County

2000 Population

2010 Population

Percent Change

Jefferson

662,047

658,466

-0.5%

Mobile

399,843

412,992

3.3%

Madison

276,700

334,811

21.0%

Montgomery

223,510

229,363

2.6%

Shelby

143,293

195,085

36.1%

Congressional Maps

Congressional maps were addressed during the 2011 regular session, rather than holding a special session, which legislators said would have been costly.[17]
The committee announced the following public hearings to take place:[18]

May 9 - Huntsville

May 10 - Birmingham

May 11 - Mobile

May 12 - Montgomery

May 13 - Selma

May 18 - Montgomery

According to William Stewart, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Alabama, this was the first time legislators in Alabama used public hearings in the redistricting process. "I don’t recall this procedure being used. The Democrats just worked it out in consultation with members of the U.S. Congress and passed a plan."[19]

Rep. Jim McClendon, co-chair of the committee, said that they planned to meet at the State House on May 18 to give preliminary approval to new Congressional and board of education maps. They then were to meet the following day to give final approval.[20]

Debate was set to start on May 24 in the legislature over new Congressional maps.[21]

Public input

During the May 9 meeting in Huntsville, residents spoke out against the splitting of communities via a river. Residents of Shoals implored the committee to keep Lauderdale and Colbert counties in the same Congressional District.[22] At a meeting on May 10 in Birmingham, some residents questioned the partisan makeup of the committee. "I am concerned that the committee doesn't represent the people of the state of Alabama. The concern I have is that these lines not be gerrymandered to accommodate somebody's parochial interest," said Herb Kuntz of Cropwell.[21]

Gerrymandering

Alabama's 7th Congressional district was featured in a Slate publication titled, "The Most Gerrymandered Congressional Districts." There were 20 districts featured from across the country.[23]

Map introduced

On May 19, 2011 the joint Legislative Committee on Reapportionment voted 19-1 to send a Congressional map to the legislature.[24] Debate began on the maps during the week of May 24, 2011.[25] An initial plan that was introduced by the committee co-chair (and endorsed by some members of the Congressional delegation) was rejected by a 10-9 vote.[26]

The map as introduced moved all of Morgan County into the 4th Congressional District. In exchange, nearly all of Franklin County shifted into the 5th Congressional District. At the time, Morgan County was split between the 4th and 5th Districts. According to Decatur Chamber of Commerce President John Seymour, the county commissioners and elected officials were responsible for lobbying the legislators to keep Morgan County whole. "To be together is good. We're divided now, and I don't think we get enough attention from either one [congressman]...It's critical that we can take a handful of mayors, county commissioners and go up and talk to our congressman in Washington and have a little more strength and influence," Seymour said.[27] Meanwhile, Colbert and Lauderdale counties would have been split by the plan -- which would have marked the first separation of those counties since the Civil War.[28]

Map passed

On June 2, 2011, the legislature sent a revised Congressional map to the governor for approval. The Senate approved the map on a 16-15 vote and the House concurred 57-45.[29]

Department of Justice officials were then to verify that the map met Voting Rights Act standards.[30] Proponents of the map were confident that it followed the strict, federal standards.[31]

The new map was drawn by a conference committee after the Senate and House passed differing maps on the first go-around. Critics of the legislation said the map diluted minority vote and was intended to maintain the current Congressional delegation of six Republicans and one Democrat.[29] Of the changes to the map:

The percentage of Black voters in the 3rd Congressional District dropped from 32 percent to 25 percent.[29]

Lauderdale County remained in the 5th Congressional District while Colbert County moved from the 5th to the 4th Congressional District.[29]

Montgomery County would have been divided among three districts -- 2nd, 3rd and 7th Congressional Districts[29]

Blount County was now split between the 4th and 6th Districts instead of being completely contained in the 6th District.[29]

Governor signs map

GovernorRobert Bentley (R) signed the Congressional redistricting map on June 8, 2011.[32] Just before he signed it, some legislators proposed a last-second change that would have placed Hunstville in the 4th and 5th Congressional districts but left Lauderdale and Colbert counties (Shoals) combined in the 5th District. However, Governor Bentley rejected the proposal and signed the map as it was passed by the legislature.[33] The new map was expected to strengthen the seats of the Republican delegation. At the time the delegation was made up of 6 Republicans and 1 Democrat.[34]

Post-approval developments

September 2011

Meanwhile, the legislative committee on reapportionment held public hearings throughout the state in early October to garner more feedback on the approved districts.[36] The committee encouraged public comments to be submitted in written form in advance of the meetings.[37]

Joe Reed, chair of the Alabama Democratic Conference, said he believed a second majority-minority district should have been drawn -- the new map had one district where the majority of voters are African-American.[35]

Legislative maps

Legislators put off working on new state legislative maps until 2012 - because senators and representatives each serve four-year terms, new maps are not needed until 2014.[39]

In fall 2011, a series of public meetings were held to gauge input from citizens on the state legislative districts. A total of 21 hearings were held across the state. Redistricting could end up carrying until the 2013 session, but Gerald Dial (R), co-chair of the Senate redistricting committee, said legislators would like to finish in 2012. A special session will likely be held to avoid potential filibusters.[40]

Public input

At a meeting on October 3, 2011, some citizens rallied behind an idea to decrease the total number of state legislators.[41][42]

When will we see maps?

Rep. Jim McClendon (R), chair of the Joint Legislative Committee on Reapportionment, said in February 2012 that he would like both chambers to draw new districts lines in a special session to take place in mid-May.[43]

Possibility of lawsuits

Although maps were still a work in progress, lawmakers said they were ready to take the new maps to court if necessary once they were approved. Republican lawyer Mark Montiel said, "Legislative redistricting is going to be a political bloodbath. I am watching the districting process, and I've had some people contact me about the possibility of litigation."[44]

However, with Republicans in charge of the process for the first time since Reconstruction, Democrats are the ones likely to file lawsuits. House Minority Leader Craig Ford said his party is prepared to go to court if the maps dilute the black vote in minority districts or show evidence of gerrymandering. Republicans have stated they have no such intentions, but, unhappy with how Congressional maps were drawn, Democrats aren't necessarily taking them at their word.

Maps approved

Amid a fury of protests by Democrats, Senate Republicans approved a House redistricting plan in the early hours of the morning of May 24, 2012 along party lines. The final vote came after an all-night session and caught Democrats off guard, who wanted to have the bill read in full. Senate President Pro Tem Del Marsh (R) said he did not hear any demands that the bill be read until after the vote started and, once started, it could not be stopped. Sen. Rodger Smitherman (D) said he called for a full reading but that Marsh simply ignored him, while Senate Minority Leader Roger Bedford (D) stated Marsh "violated the state Constitution. This is the lowest point I've seen in this Senate."[46]

Soon after the plan passed in the Senate, the House approved the new plan. It next went to Gov. Robert Bentley (R) for his signature, and then had to be approved by the U.S. Justice Department.[46]

VRA clearance

On July 26, 2012, Alabama Attorney GeneralLuther Strange (R) filed a lawsuit seeking clearance from a federal court that the state's redistricting plan for the legislature does not violate the Voting Rights Act. The lawsuit, which is a required provision of the VRA, was heard by a three-judge District Court.[47]

Ultimately, the US Department of Justice approved of the new maps on October 5, 2012.[48]

Senator Irons Controversy

Democratic State SenatorTammy Irons claimed in May 2012 that she was offered a "great district" if she would switch parties and run as a Republican. Irons would not say which Republican offered her this deal during the redistricting process, but she did not take the deal. State Senator Gerald Dial, the Senate chair of the redistricting committee, said she should not have been offered such a deal, and that he had no knowledge of it. Irons' district changed significantly as a result of redistricting.[49]

The sections in question dealt with the issue of "preclearance," where areas designated under the VRA must get all voting changes approved by the U.S. Department of Justice. A total of 16 states, including Alabama, had to receive some form of approval under the act. Congress renewed these sections in 2006 for another 25 years without updating which parts of the country should be covered. Shelby County argued that this was done without sufficient evidence, explaining, "It simply was not rational in theory or practice to impose preclearance on the covered jurisdictions through 2031 based on voting statistics from 1964, 1968, and 1972."[52]

The Justice Department defended the law, saying that these areas continued to show trends of discrimination, stating, "The symptoms of discrimination have changed, but the underlying disease remains the same in the very jurisdictions that have been the subject (of federal oversight) since its original enactment."[52] Following oral arguments made on February 2, 2011, U.S. District Judge John Bates asked for written comments regarding the coverage formula as it was used in 1965. Ellis contended the case had the potential to make it to the U.S. Supreme Court.[53]

Initial federal court decision

On September 21, 2011, a federal court in Washington, DC upheld the law and rejected the lawsuit.

In a 151-page opinion issued by Judge John Bates, the court held there are still instances of intentional racial discrimination which would require the Voting Rights Act to protect minorities.[54]

Supreme Court decision

The case eventually made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court as Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder, Attorney General, et al. On June 25, 2013, the court issued a 5-4 ruling that effectively struck down the coverage formula in section five of the Voting Rights Act. The court majority stated that the formula used to enforce the VRA is unconstitutional and needs to be updated. Chief Justice John Roberts, in the court's opinion, wrote, "Our country has changed, and while any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions."[55]

The court did not issue a holding on section 5 itself, with Roberts saying, "Congress may draft another formula based on current conditions."[56]

Legislative Black Caucus lawsuit

On August 10, 2012, state Democrats, black lawmakers and others filed suit to block implementation of legislative redistricting plans. According to the lawsuit, the plans diluted minority voting strength, violated the "one person, one vote" principle, and illegally split counties in order to consolidate Republican dominance in other districts. Meanwhile, Republican lawmakers argued that "they were complying with the Voting Rights Act in moving black voters to existing majority-minority districts."[57][58]

For partisan advantage, Republicans have historically tried to “pack” minorities into districts, while Democrats have attempted to “crack” majority-minority districts in the redistricting process to spread minorities into more districts to boost Democratic candidates, even at the expense of providing safer seats for minority candidates.

Republican-led states in recent years have interpreted the Voting Rights Act to mean that they can’t reduce the percentage of black inhabitants of a majority-minority district even by the slightest amount—and in states where voters are polarized politically along racial lines, that has allowed them to draw districts that are more Republican.[59]

A three-judge Federal District Court panel rejected the challenge, but the case was appealed to the United States Supreme Court. On March 25, 2015, the court ruled in a 5-4 decision that the lower court's initial ruling was "legally erroneous." In the court's majority opinion, Justice Stephen G. Breyer wrote, "That Alabama expressly adopted and applied a policy of prioritizing mechanical racial targets above all other districting criteria (save one-person, one-vote) provides evidence that race motivated the drawing of particular lines in multiple districts in the State." The court did not go so far as to deem the district lines unconstitutional, however. Instead, the court sent the case back to Federal District Court for further review.[58][60]

Assessing the impact of the case, legal scholar Rick Hasen wrote the following:[61]

“

Today’s decision [makes] it harder for states to use compliance with the Voting Rights Act as a pretext to secure partisan advantage. All in all, this may help stop some egregious gerrymanders, but there will still be plenty of ways for states to draw district lines for partisan advantage without running afoul of the Voting Rights Act. And depending upon how the Court decides the Arizona redistricting case later this Term, states may have even a freer hand to draw lines for nakedly political purposes.[59]

History

The process of redistricting in Alabama is addressed in sections 198-201 of Article IX of the Alabama Constitution. Redistricting is mandated during the first session after official completion of the U.S. census in order to reflect population shifts within the state.

In 1990, the Alabama Legislature established the Permanent Legislative Committee on Reapportionment. It is currently responsible for preparing and developing redistricting plans following each census.[2]

Failures at redistricting

Although the legislature is required by the state constitution to reapportion itself every 10 years, it failed to do so between 1901-1972. In August 1950, a committee made up of 6 members of the House and 6 Senators met to study reapportionment. Their study, the first since 1901, was delivered in October. Two reapportionment studies were made by the Legislative Reference Service, in 1950 and 1954 respectively. None of these, however, lead to reapportionment. Additional failed attempts at reapportionment were made in 1956, 1959, and 1961.[62]

Class action suit

These multiple failures led 14 Birmingham citizens to file a class action suit in district court on behalf of all residents of Alabama. The suit, filed August 12, 1961, sought all members of the state legislature to be elected at-large until the legislature followed the Constitutional provision for reapportionment.

In 1962, the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Baker v. Carr declared federal courts had jurisdiction over legislative reapportionment cases, which led the district court to give the legislature until July 16, 1962 to reapportion itself or it would be up to the court. The legislature passed two reapportionment bills, but they were voided by the federal court, leading the court to order immediate implementation of its own plan.[62]

In 1965, the legislature passed a redistricting plan geared toward ending rural domination of the legislature. While the plan for the Senate was approved, the federal court rejected the plan for the House, declaring it "racial gerrymandering." Ignoring the court's order to address the House redistricting issue, the legislature once again saw the court implement its own plan.

Creation of a permanent committee

Often finding itself at odds with the federal court, the legislature in 1972 created a permanent joint legislative committee on reapportionment. The committee has been altered and amended through the intervening years, and is currently known as the Permanent Legislative Committee on Reapportionment. It is responsible for preparing and developing redistricting plans after each census.[62]

Redistricting of Senate and House districts last took place during 2001-2002.

2001 redistricting

In 2001, Democrats held the governorship, the House, and the Senate. At the federal level, both U.S. Senate seats and five of seven Congressional seats were in Republican hands. In June 2001, at adjournment sine die for the regular legislative session, a special session was called. It would ultimately run through July 2, 2001. Three special session bills, two from the House and one from the Senate, were passed and forward to then-Governor Donald Siegleman.

Of concern was avoiding the complicated fall out from the 1991 redistricting, when Republicans presented a plan that cut away minorities in the 2nd and 6th Districts who were reliable Democratic voters. However, it took longer than expected and a court imposed plan prevailed when legislators failed to draw a timely map for the 1992 elections. Challenges to the map wound through state and Federal court; in the end, a U.S. District Court ruled that the Equal Rights Clause of the 14th Amendment had been violated in four state Senate and three state House seats where white voters had been packed together in order to create majority black situations in adjacent districts - a requirement of Section Five of the Voting Rights Act.

Redistricting had a rough start, when the regular session ended in the early summer of 2001 with no final decision. Republicans brought suit, asking a judge to remove the process to the courts and Democrats countered by unveiling their plans the next day. Governor Siegleman's special session resulted in a map of House and Senate districts, but the votes to approve it were party-line matters and Republicans were predictably unhappy with the results. Interest groups such as the NAACP also found faults in the legislature's work.

Siegleman called the legislature into another special session in late August to address Congressional and Board of Education boundaries; both chambers passed a bill within days - just not the same bill. The House refused to adopt the Senate bill, which had the support of incumbent Congressmen. The GOP vowed to fight the House bill until their preferred bill, the Senate's 'consensus', made headway. No one brokered a deal and the second special session ended with no movement on a Congressional map. The GOP began preparing for a legal onslaught over U.S. House seats while lawsuits continued to pile up over the already passed state plans.

In October 2001, a delegation of black community leaders asked the Justice Department, reviewing the state plan, to throw it out based on concerns over House districts. While the Department of Justice did sign off on state level legislative seats, Congressional boundaries remained unresolved. In November, Republicans got a panel of Federal judges to give Alabama's General Assembly a deadline to sort out those seats; the Courts also issued a temporary map. Facing a January 2002 deadline, Governor Seigleman convened a special legislative session for the third time in one year. The legislature met from December 6, 2001 until January 16, 2002, knowing the trial date had already been set if they failed to complete a map.[63]

The state's Senate finally passed a bill on January 25, 2002, with the House following six days later. The Governor signed off on the plan on February 1, 2002 and, in early March, Justice Department approval came through. The plan was barely complete in time for potential candidates in the 2002 midterms to make a decision and file to run before the April 4, 2002 cutoff.[64]

Deviation from "Ideal Districts"

Under federal law, districts may vary from an 'Ideal District' by up to 10%, though the lowest number achievable is preferred. 'Ideal Districts' are computed through simple division of the number of seats for any office into the population at the time of the Census.

Lawsuits related to the 2000 Census

There were 11 lawsuits, not counting appeals, related to the Alabama 2000 census redistricting process.[66]

Barnett v. Alabama, No. Civ.A. 01-0433 (S.D. Ala. Nov. 7, 2001) (three-judge court) : On June 15, 2001, plaintiffs brought suit complaining the General Assembly had failed to draw a map of House and Senate seats. When the legislature presented a plan to the Governor on July 3, 2001, the Court dismissed the case.

Montiel v. Davis, No. Civ.A. 01-0447-BH-S, 215 F. Supp.2d 1279 (S.D. Ala. Jul. 8, 2002) (three-judge court) : brought on July 21, 2001 over the legislative failure to draw new legislative, Congressional, and State Board of Education boundaries after the 2000 census. As soon as lawmakers did present a map for legislative districts, Montiel was amended to challenge the Constitutionality of the districts; specifically claiming racial gerrymandering had been at work and had violated "one man, one vote." The Congressional and Education complaints were severed and the defendants got a summary judgement in their favor on the legislative issue as the Courts felt a 10% or smaller deviation from the "ideal district" was small enough for a rebuttable presumption of Constitutionality. The plaintiffs did not ever bring cause to trigger scrutiny.

Webb v. Alabama, No. CV-01-1964 (Cir. Ct. Montgomery Co. Jan. 2002) : filed July 2, 2001 seeking a declaratory judgment that the legislative plan was Constitutional and later dismissed when the plaintiffs could not cite a controversy sufficient to justify a ruling.

Douglas v. Alabama, No. CV-2001-1985 (Cir. Ct. Montgomery Co.) : alleged state and Federal violations when the legislature failed to draw a map of Congressional districts and later removed to Federal litigation

Douglas v. Alabama, No. 01-D-922-N (M.D. Ala. Apr. 29, 2002) (three-judge court) : filed in state court and removed to the Federal courts, after being consolidated with Montiel and Barnett. The Courts halted proceedings twice, first to allow the legislature time to draw a map and the second time when the legislature ultimately presented a plan to the Governor.